It's X, not twitter. That system is directly controlled by a single man for his own benefit; we should use the name that reminds us of that.
He openly promotes himself and those that pay him. If you think Musk doesn't have an admin dashboard where he can demote accounts he dislikes and promote his friends, I have some... unkind words for you.
It's about control. Control over your information intake is partial control over you.
We can do so much better than ceding that power to the highest bidder.
That's unbelievably stupid. But then again, so is not renting out the space at the market rate so you can pretend it's worth more than it really is. So... good luck, I guess?
If someone generates a ten thousand word slop essay with AI, do I have a moral obligation to critique its reasoning step by step instead of merely pointing out its origin?
If I do, it just so happens I have a ten thousand word rebuttal for you…
Are you religious? If not, you should assume that your cognition is a product of your body, a magnificent machine.
I don't think LLMs are sapient, but your argument implies that creativity is something unique to humans and therefore no machine can ever have it. If the human body IS a machine, this is a contradiction.
Now, there's a very reasonable argument to be made concerning the purpose of copyright law, but "machines can't be creative" isn't it.
Creativity is not unique to humans, but legal rights to protect creativity is unique to humans (or human-represented organizations). Humans are always special case in law.
Selling human livers and selling cow livers are never treated the same in terms of legality. Even the difference between your liver and that of a cow is much, much smaller than the difference between your brain and Stable Diffusion. I'm sure there isn't single biochemical reaction that is unique to humans.
Converting a raw 8k video down to 1080p is a full of creative solutions and its perfectly fine to see it as the machine doing some form of creativity when optimizing performance and file size. In similar way, compilers are marvelous and in many cases ingeniously when building and compiling binaries from source code.
It is however general agreed on those do not create independent original works. At the most generous interpretation they get defined as derivatives, and at the more common interpretation they are plain copies. The creativity is also usually not given to the machine, but those who built the machine. Even if the programmer is unable to predict all outcomes of creative written code, a unpredictable outcome is still attributed to the programmer.
It was ruled that our Copyright Law does require that a Human create the work, and that only a Human can hold copyright. The monkey was not given copyright over the image it took.
Monkeys obviously can be creative. However, our law has decided that human creativity is protected by copyright, and human creativity is special within the law. I don't see any contradictions or arguments about sapience that are relevant here.
Time to invent a type of plastic that's poisonous to these bacteria!
> Is it harmful to humans?
> Not at all! You can definitely trust that my company has studied this in depth. I'm sure it isn't going to make it into everyone's bloodstreams before we learn it's actually terrible.
This seems like the time to mention my unreleased board/video game, Star Gambit!
It's a turn-based abstract space fleet battle coming to your browser in 2026. It's already playable over the internet w/ time controls and ratings. If that interests you, join the discord for updates and playtest invites!
Dart/Flutter, custom engine. I've been very satisfied with it; does everything I need for a 2d game. Once it can natively use shaders/GPU on web it'll be perfect.
He openly promotes himself and those that pay him. If you think Musk doesn't have an admin dashboard where he can demote accounts he dislikes and promote his friends, I have some... unkind words for you.
It's about control. Control over your information intake is partial control over you.
We can do so much better than ceding that power to the highest bidder.
reply